ReviewClinical neuropsychiatry2025
Pharmacological Interventions for Excoriation Behaviors in Alzheimer's Disease: An Empty Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.
Review in Clinical neuropsychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: skin-picking behaviors are often maintained in association with mood changes, but can also manifest as separate manifestations particularly in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Verifying the effect of interventions on its remission may contribute to reducing stress in patients and caregivers. This systematic review sought to evaluate the eficacy of pharmacological interventions for skin-picking behaviors in elderly individuals with AD. Method: according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020), searches were conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov,Embase, Lilacs, Open Science Framework, PsycNET, PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, SciELO Preprints and Web of Science, with no language or date restrictions. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials with participants aged ≥ 40 years with AD, evaluating pre/ post-test outcomes with standardized instruments. Results: of the 87 records found, none met the eligibility criteria, configuring an empty review. Two studies related to the topic were excluded because they were not clinical trials (a single case report and a case series), involving five patients treated with antipsychotics (risperidone, pimozide and thioridazine) and antidepressants (paroxetine). The absence of eligible studies suggests a gap in the literature and the lack of robust evidence on the pharmacological efficacy on these behavioral symptoms in this population. Conclusions: future clinical trials are needed to support specific therapeutic recommendations, since the evidence suggested by studies that are not clinical trials, evaluated in addition to the main objective of this review, is primary and limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.